The experiments measured whether you have a brainwave amplitude peak 300ms after being exposed to a known concept.
The subjects were asked specific questions on screen (for 2s) and flashed all possible answers every half a second, multiple times. The PIN extraction lasts 90 seconds and even then it doesn't guarantee order of the 4 most recognised numbers, with many subjects probably willingly trying to answer the question in their mind.
Experiments with prominent results -- face recognition, month of birth -- don't specify their length, but compared to PIN sampling would last 90s - 100s. Once again the subjects are explicitly shown the question on screen and are prepared to answer in their mind. Also, with face recognition we might get false positives because people look alike.
What this paper builds on is the ability to register a response to perception of something we're currently thinking about. Given that it references existing keyboard input methods that take advantage of this capability, I think this article makes it sound too much like the answers were unwilfully obtained from the subjects, with a 40% success rate. It would actually be very interesting to carry out this study in a different setting. If subjects were in their own environment, using the gaming device as intended? If questions were being asked subliminally or through in game messaging? The success rate might be a lot closer to random guess?
The subjects were asked specific questions on screen (for 2s) and flashed all possible answers every half a second, multiple times. The PIN extraction lasts 90 seconds and even then it doesn't guarantee order of the 4 most recognised numbers, with many subjects probably willingly trying to answer the question in their mind.
Experiments with prominent results -- face recognition, month of birth -- don't specify their length, but compared to PIN sampling would last 90s - 100s. Once again the subjects are explicitly shown the question on screen and are prepared to answer in their mind. Also, with face recognition we might get false positives because people look alike.
What this paper builds on is the ability to register a response to perception of something we're currently thinking about. Given that it references existing keyboard input methods that take advantage of this capability, I think this article makes it sound too much like the answers were unwilfully obtained from the subjects, with a 40% success rate. It would actually be very interesting to carry out this study in a different setting. If subjects were in their own environment, using the gaming device as intended? If questions were being asked subliminally or through in game messaging? The success rate might be a lot closer to random guess?
Link to paper: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...